Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

Brutal Strudel wrote:

So in the Prime Universe, they had the resources to build a Galaxy Class-sized ship on the ground? They had warp engines that spat rocket exhaust, even though GR explicitly reiterated that Warp Drive did not run on exhaust propulsion principles and that the E was so big (and so unfit for atmospheric flight) that she spent her entire life--birth to death--in space (and her one blue sky adventure, "Tommorow Is Yeterday," saw her compromised by atmospheric flight she stumbled into)?

Compromised by the atmospheric flight itself, though, or compromised by the black star/full reverse warp/rubber band-snap chain of events (stumble) which placed the E in the atmosphere?

__________________"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with
confidence, stands a good chance to deceive." — Mark Twain

Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

Good question. From their desperation to climb, I figured it was the E needed to attain orbit to fly comfortably. However, they also were desperate not to be detected so...

Since every thing I'd read from the production/creative end was adamant that the Enterprise was not designed for atmospheric flight--since Matt Jeffries designed her specifically suggest she was a creature of the void (sorry--the beautiful girl brings out the bad poet in me*), maybe I'm just projecting an assumption.

*True Story: I once texted "Never lose you" to a Star Trek-hating woman--sans attribution, of course.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

Brutal Strudel wrote:

So in the Prime Universe, they had the resources to build a Galaxy Class-sized ship on the ground?

In "Parallels", we see a Galaxy-class ship being built on the surface of Mars.

They had warp engines that spat rocket exhaust, even though GR explicitly reiterated that Warp Drive did not run on exhaust propulsion principles and that the E was so big (and so unfit for atmospheric flight) that she spent her entire life--birth to death--in space (and her one blue sky adventure, "Tommorow Is Yeterday," saw her compromised by atmospheric flight she stumbled into)?

So what are the red streaks zooming from the rear of the nacelles in movies II-VI? And the Enterprise NX-01 flying over NYC?

Underwater ships we've seen before in Trek (Insurrection), as well as ships swimming through giant Space Amoebas and endless other ridiculous stuff. And Scotty even points out "how ridiculous it is to hide a starship at the bottom of the ocean"

Writer "intent" be damned (hence the term fig leaf), these guys remade Trek in their image. I like it but it is more believably an extension of Gold Key comics, Peter Pan story records and Mego playsets than the show that ran on NBC from 1967 to 1969. Spocktimus Prime doesn't change that.

As happened in TMP, TWoK, TNG and ENT. Seriously, have you tried to compare TOS and TMP or WoK? It's like entirely different universes. The ship couldn't look more different in TMP, and then by WoK somehow technology has gone from showers which beam clothing onto the occupant to torpedoes having to be manually loaded. Not to mention, Khan and his followers changing radically in what was supposed to be a direct sequel to an old episode.

It's all happened before and will all happen again next iteration of Trek. Just because technical manuals and chronologies and novels gloss over the big changes in direction for Trek doesn't mean they're not there staring you right in the face. Trek's continuity is complete illusion. That someone will suspend disbelief for everything up until the latest round of changes seems rather ridiculous. Of course it's a reboot, but since we pretended the last half dozen were part of a continuous universe, I don't see what has to change now.

1. We see components of Galaxy class ships, a hundred years post TOS, with a hundred years worth of advances in tech from over a thousand worlds, on the ground of a planet with far less gravity than earth, roughly one third. Those components--saucers, if I recall--could well be awaiting lift-off, like modules of the ISS, to be joined with star drives in orbit. And if there were star drives in the picture, the saucers were not sitting atop them. So you have the mass of a Galaxy Class ship roughly halved, awaiting lift-off in 1/3 Iowa's gravity, to be assembled in space. Besides, I believe Probert said they were test modules, never intended to see actual flight, kinda like the shuttle Enterprise.

2. The ENTIRE ship streaks--it's a representation of the Doppler shift. The E-D rubber-banded. No exhaust, just a poetic representation of what FTL might look like to an observer. As far as ENT goes? F*ck ENT.

3. I doubt the Space Amoeba had the pressure or gravity found at the bottom of a Class M planet's ocean.

4. TMP and TWoK as reboots? Partial reboots, maybe--but then TOS rebooted from episode to episode, by that logic. (To use the Bond analogy, Lazenby is the same Bond as Connery, as evidenced by his handling Connery's mementos in OHMSS--he reverts to Connery in Diamonds Are Forever. And since Moore was Connery's contemperorary, we can assume it was the same Bond through A View to a Kill. Dalton was a partial reboot, Brosnan and Craig radical and complete reboots, despite Judy Dench being M in all their films. And, God help us, we're supposed to buy that Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney are all the same Batman. But they surely aren't West. And Bale ain't none of 'em).

But as I said, I'd have preferred an honest reboot to the fig leaf you are defending. The fig leaf is there. Okay. It's "not" a reboot.

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

1. You're using speculation about the limits of Trek technology here. It doesn't fit how you think it should be. Nothing outside your imposed limitations precludes the possibility that they could do it.

2. No, it's bright red booster streaks shooting out the rear of the nacelles, like someone did it with a red marker pen.

4. I still don't see why you can suspend disbelief for what came before but not now. Look at the videos in my sig - why is Voyager's warp 9.975 ridiculously slower than TOS' warp 8.4? Because they moved the goalposts.

Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

1. Of course I'm speculating--based on the Writer's Guide and TMoST stating explicitly that the E was built in space and based on Probert's statement. You are speculating based on other things. Oh, and goose? Take a gander:

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

1. Making of Star Trek and the writers guides aren't canon. Their speculations (like photon torpedoes being composed of energy) have been superseded. Also, there's nothing to say they're not right and the TOS Enterprise wasn't built in space. The issue is the possibility of building on land.

2. Click! It looks like the Red Arrows putting on a display. There's also Nemesis, which left similar blue trails to the new movie.

3. I must have missed the lessons on miles-long space amoebas which magically suck the life force from people and technology. And what about the times the various Trek ships have endured crushing black holes, freaky anomalies, near collisions with suns etc? H20 has nothing on them.

4. I'm taking the whole lot into account, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. No cherry picking from the bits I like best and insisting they're the only way.

Trek is a goofy comic book world, it just occasionally likes to pretend it's being realistic science fiction. There's more than enough room for all the Abramsverse silliness.

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

Brutal Strudel wrote:

Good question. From their desperation to climb, I figured it was the E needed to attain orbit to fly comfortably. However, they also were desperate not to be detected so...

I always had the impression that they were much too low to achieve a stable orbit, and that stable orbit was desirable not only to reduce the possibility of detection but also to provide sufficient time for assessing damage sustained during the "surprise time-travel" event and effecting necessary repairs.

Brutal Strudel wrote:

Since every thing I'd read from the production/creative end was adamant that the Enterprise was not designed for atmospheric flight--since Matt Jeffries designed her specifically suggest she was a creature of the void

While certainly designed for traveling the void and while clearly not made for optimum performance in planetary atmospheres, it seemed apparent that E could cut low-level atmospheric flight when it was called for, even on possibly-compromised ("She's sluggish, sir") impulse engines.

SPOCK: We are too low in the atmosphere to retain this orbit, Captain. Engineering reports we have sufficient impulse power to achieve escape velocity.

(sorry--the beautiful girl brings out the bad poet in me*), maybe I'm just projecting an assumption.

I think that can be allowed.

geneo wrote:

Set Harth wrote:

If it gets repeated enough times, it becomes true!

Like Hitler said, tell a lie big enough and often enough people will think it is the truth.

That you did little more than repeat in different words what Set had already said makes your post superfluous and verging on spammy. Bringing that other guy's name up in this thread serves no useful purpose whatsoever, so please: be so good as to refrain from introducing inappropriate/irrelevant Hitlers into any future discussion.

__________________"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with
confidence, stands a good chance to deceive." — Mark Twain

Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

Shaka Zulu wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

Shatner has been in as many Trek movies as Connery was in Bond movies. And that's not counting three seasons of TOS. That's a good long run, I think, and more than enough for anyone.

THIS.

It's way past time for everybody to accept Chris Pine as Kirk (along with Brian Goss from Star Trek Phase II).

But what if we just don't like Pine? As an actor or as his part is written? I have nothing against Pine as an actor--he strikes me as being an able enough guy--but I do have a problem with how his Kirk is based on the same "phaser in hand, green girl in the other" reductionism that plagued the TNG/VOY creative offices. As I said after seeing the first one, Pine's Kirk is a great Gary Mitchell.

We can accept new actors in an established role but we can also object if we think the new actor is wrong for the part or does a bad job with it. George Clooney is a great actor but his Batman was--thanks to his own lack of investment and the utter abortion that was everything else about the film he was in--terrible. Likewise, some people are going to prefer the mean, cold-blooded killer Bonds (Connery and Craig) to the more suave and humorous Bonds (Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan--though Brosnan, imho, could actually do cold-blooded quite nicely).

As far is Shatner is concerned, I have no desire to see him reprise Kirk. I just wish he didn't have to see his iteration of the character go out in one of the worst Trek movies.

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

Brutal Strudel wrote:

Likewise, some people are going to prefer the mean, cold-blooded killer Bonds (Connery and Craig) to the more suave and humorous Bonds (Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan--though Brosnan, imho, could actually do cold-blooded quite nicely).

Hey, what about Dalton? I thought he was great! Nobody gives him the credit he deserves! It's a travesty!

Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

Mr_Homn wrote:

Brutal Strudel wrote:

Likewise, some people are going to prefer the mean, cold-blooded killer Bonds (Connery and Craig) to the more suave and humorous Bonds (Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan--though Brosnan, imho, could actually do cold-blooded quite nicely).

Hey, what about Dalton? I thought he was great! Nobody gives him the credit he deserves! It's a travesty!

I was at a loss on how to characterize Dalton--he's much more in the Connery/Craig vein, obviously.

Re: They really should have found a way to get Shatner on one of the m

Brutal Strudel wrote:

Mr_Homn wrote:

Brutal Strudel wrote:

Likewise, some people are going to prefer the mean, cold-blooded killer Bonds (Connery and Craig) to the more suave and humorous Bonds (Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan--though Brosnan, imho, could actually do cold-blooded quite nicely).

Hey, what about Dalton? I thought he was great! Nobody gives him the credit he deserves! It's a travesty!

I was at a loss on how to characterize Dalton--he's much more in the Connery/Craig vein, obviously.